Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed when errors are voluntarily corrected during assessment. ...
Income Tax : A summary of key penalties under the Income Tax Act for AY 2026-27, covering defaults from late filing and non-payment to misrepor...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held penalty u/s 271(1)(c) unsustainable as 54F exemption failed due to builder delay, not taxpayer’s fault. Full dis...
Income Tax : Understand why an income-tax penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the charge isn't specified as concealment or inaccurate...
Income Tax : Learn how taxpayers can defer income tax penalty proceedings when quantum additions are under appeal. Understand legal grounds and...
Income Tax : The Committee recommends that the scope of Section 273B should be suitably enlarged to provide that penalty for concealment of inc...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that reassessment beyond three years was not permissible where alleged escaped income was only ₹38 lakh. Since sta...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that penalty was not justified where all relevant facts were disclosed in the return of income, audit report, an...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT upheld deletion of a penalty after finding that the show-cause notice failed to specify the applicable limb of Sect...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that unsecured loan additions could not be sustained where the assessee furnished confirmations, bank statemen...
Income Tax : The Bangalore ITAT held that a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot survive without the Assessing Officer recor...
Income Tax : Section 270AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) inter alia provides that w.e.f. 1 st April, 2017, the Assessing Officer, on an...
Bhavani Gems Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) We have heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record including cited orders of Tribunal in assessee’s case for different years. Upon perusal of the same, we find strength in the argument of Ld. AR since the assessee’s claim for additional depreciation has been allowed in subsequent […]
ACIT Vs Krishna C. Tandon (HUF) (ITAT Mumbai) In this case penalty proceedings were initiated during quantum assessment for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee contested the same on the premises that full particulars were furnished in the return of income and there was no concealment of income and mere change of head of income […]
A disclosure made under the fear of a plausible penalty or other proceedings cannot be termed voluntary or made in good faith. Mere request for non-initiation of penalty on the ground of disclosure branding the same to be voluntary with a view to buy peace and avoid litigation will not take the assessee out of the scope and ambit of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Assessing Officer that the actual investment made in the new residential house is Rs. 20 lakh, but, he has also filed a revised computation of income on 20th November 2012, offering taxable long term capital gain at a higher figure of Rs. 24,98,488. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has accepted the income shown in the revised computation of income. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we are of the view that the explanation of the assessee to the effect that investment shown in new house at Rs. 25 lakh was due to a bonafide mistake is acceptable.
Gopalratnam Santha Mosur Vs ITO (Madras High Court) The petitioner was the co-owner of the immovable property situated in Tamil Nadu and she had sold the property and paid the entire capital gain tax applicable in respect of the transaction. The petitioner thereafter claimed 50% of the capital gains tax as rebate under Indo-Canadian DTAA. […]
It is abundantly clear that the very basis of the penalty proceedings was set aside by the Tribunal in an appeal against the assessment order. There was no addition of income. On the contrary, the case of the assessee, which was negated by the assessing officer of carrying on the business of draft discounting, is accepted by the Tribunal. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would not arise.
The captioned two appeals by the assessee relating to Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 involve a common issue, therefore, they have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Penalty U/s. 271(c) Addition for difference on account of method of valuation of Closing Stock without any intention to to conceal income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not justified
In an appeal before Ahmedabad ITAT, DCIT vs. Parinay Organizers Pvt. Ltd., one of the grounds raised was that whether on the facts of the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO on account of dis allowances of interest expenses of Rs. 44,19,194/- without considering the merits of the case.
DIT Vs. Nomura India Investment Fund (Bombay High Court) Provisions of section 271(1)(c) can only be invoked upon satisfaction of the ingredients as laid down in the said section. In the present case, it appears that the assessee had disclosed in its return the loss of Rs. 80.64 Crores sustained by him and further in the return, note was also given that it reserves its right to carry forward the loss.
